I just listed a pretty basic example of why the Mary Sue's comment section, despite being heavily moderated, isn't actually good. I didn't say Susan B. Anthony plotted 9/11. I don't get how you can read frothing rage in that comment but whatever.
there’s no such thing as just reading anymore — passively absorbing information being presented to you — without an invitation to voice your opinion. i can’t even be alone in goddamned books anymore. a dotted underline appears: “153 people highlighted this,” the kindle tells me. why on earth would that matter to me. get out of my book
comment sections have value as avenues for discussion as long as discussion actually can occur there. youtube still has comments, but they could be replaced site-wide with a picture of a small horse, and be of greater service to its users. sometimes you need to know what a horse looks like. how many legs, etc.
the bleated message of the internet is: everything that pops into your head is important. your most fleeting thought matters every bit as much as what you just read. your hottest possible take needs to be made visible this instant.
i want conversation, exchange, analysis, thought, dissection. i want discourse. but we live in a post-discourse society. “i read this article” is a modern colloquialism which means “i saw most of the words in this headline.”
we need to be exposed to opposing views. it rounds us as people. it tests our arguments, and allows us to rethink or discard bad ones. but in such a landscape, purposefully-truncated methods of communication — the tweet, the status update, the collapsible comment — become 140-character lathes to sharpen existing beliefs to little points, to jab at someone else with, who then prepare their own pointy stick in rebuttal
at some sad point on the curve, comments are just a way to drive up pageviews
Yeah this is a terrible take on this and is outright trying to miss the point of the joke. The point isn't "Taking down comment sections is bad", it's "the system your putting in place to replace them is even more outdated and is being used to stifle actual conversation on the piece." Youtube comments are (sadly) better conversation makers than gloried fan letters.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Kris Straub continues to be one of the most level headed of the internet webcomicers.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Yeah this is a terrible take on this and is outright trying to miss the point of the joke. The point isn't "Taking down comment sections is bad", it's "the system your putting in place to replace them is even more outdated and is being used to stifle actual conversation on the piece." Youtube comments are (sadly) better conversation makers than gloried fan letters.
I doubt the chainsaw suit comic is a reaction to the PA comic as much as it is just its own take on the discussion generally (i.e. I'm not sure Straub is "not getting the joke"). If Kris Straub really wanted to disagree with G&T's opinion on this, he could just knock on their door and say, "You guys are dumb. Wanna go to taco bell?"
WordLust on
+8
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Yeah this is a terrible take on this and is outright trying to miss the point of the joke. The point isn't "Taking down comment sections is bad", it's "the system your putting in place to replace them is even more outdated and is being used to stifle actual conversation on the piece." Youtube comments are (sadly) better conversation makers than gloried fan letters.
I doubt the chainsaw suit comic is a reaction to the PA comic as much as it is just its own take on the discussion generally (i.e. I'm not sure Straub is "not getting the joke"). If Kris Straub really wanted to disagree with G&T's opinion on this, he could just knock on their door and say, "You guys are dumb. Wanna go to taco bell?"
Yeah, if Kris Sraub wanted Jerry to know he doesn't agree with him, he'll just walk a few steps over and tell him to his face.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+3
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
To be honest, I don't think that erasing a comment section is worse than heavily modding it (specially when the modding prohibits the commenting over particular topics); at least in the first one, you disallow people from making both negative AND positive commentary on your material. By modding it you just twist or channel the comments to adapt to your particular view, or to look unnaturally positive.
You realize the entire reason this community isn't a total cesspool like other sites is because of Tube and company's very strong moderation, right? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this place if it looked like a YouTube comments section.
I'm pretty sad that this is the stance that Mike and Jerry have taken.
To be honest, I have seen far more hostility in this thread (between mods and users, and between users themselves) that I have seen in most 9gag posts (a site widely know for his massive userbase with... less than nice attitudes).
Anyways, my problem with the comic in not that they are pointing out what they believe is an hypocrisy (Motherboard erasing comment boards while claiming its objective is to offer better ways of communication) but that they are hypocrites themselves in a similar subject , claiming that "Penny Arcade's own policy is to invest heavily in community, both through comments and the forum" while heavily restricting speach liberty in a hostile manner. I'm pretty sure complaining about hypocrisy while being hypocrite is... hypocrite? ironic? one of those for sure.
It is though. People think Limited Speech and censorship are automatically bad instead of a literal definition, abit of something that can be extremely bad if applied improperly or by government action.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
You know, one of the ways in which comments decrease dialog instead of increasing it, is when comments focus on the way the content creator looks and/or how much they would like to have sex with the content creator. Or say, in terms of news stories, they may do the same thing with a female who is the subject of the story. "I'd totally fuck her" is actually a way to shut down conversation, at least shut down the conversation of the woman in question because you change her from a person through which you may have dialog into a sex doll.
People claim they want to have conversations and shutting down comments destroys that. What they often mean is that they would like to control the conversation, and are opposed to anyone attempting to remove control away from them.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
It is though. People think Limited Speech and censorship are automatically bad instead of a literal definition, abit of something that can be extremely bad if applied improperly or by government action.
If PA mods said there is now a rule that no one is allowed to say the word "aardvark" then, yes, your speech is being limited in the very technical sense that there is now one less word you are allowed to say.
But your rights are not being infringed.
If all you're saying is, "There is one less word I'm allowed to say," but it's not a speech rights complaint, then what even is your point other than stating the obvious in a convoluted way?
WordLust on
+9
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
It is though. People think Limited Speech and censorship are automatically bad instead of a literal definition, abit of something that can be extremely bad if applied improperly or by government action.
If PA mods said there is now a rule that no one is allowed to say the word "aardvark" then, yes, your speech is being limited in the very technical sense that there is now one less word you are allowed to say.
But your rights are not being infringed.
If all you're saying is, "There is one less word I'm allowed to say," but it's not a speech rights complaint, then what even is your point other than stating the obvious in a convoluted way?
My point is people hide or run around the usage of the word censorship, as well as cry too much about it.
It is though. People think Limited Speech and censorship are automatically bad instead of a literal definition, abit of something that can be extremely bad if applied improperly or by government action.
If PA mods said there is now a rule that no one is allowed to say the word "aardvark" then, yes, your speech is being limited in the very technical sense that there is now one less word you are allowed to say.
But your rights are not being infringed.
If all you're saying is, "There is one less word I'm allowed to say," but it's not a speech rights complaint, then what even is your point other than stating the obvious in a convoluted way?
My point is people hide or run around the usage of the word censorship, as well as cry too much about it.
That was far from convoluted.
I'm going to have to agree with @Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
+2
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
It is though. People think Limited Speech and censorship are automatically bad instead of a literal definition, abit of something that can be extremely bad if applied improperly or by government action.
If PA mods said there is now a rule that no one is allowed to say the word "aardvark" then, yes, your speech is being limited in the very technical sense that there is now one less word you are allowed to say.
But your rights are not being infringed.
If all you're saying is, "There is one less word I'm allowed to say," but it's not a speech rights complaint, then what even is your point other than stating the obvious in a convoluted way?
My point is people hide or run around the usage of the word censorship, as well as cry too much about it.
That was far from convoluted.
The convoluted part for me, especially with this last post, is wondering what specifically you are arguing against, what you think is bad in the series of events that have taken place.
Are you unhappy because you feel you should be able to say whatever you want whenever you want? Well, you were never going to get to do that anyway. If you have a job, you'll get in trouble and potentially get fired for saying certain things. If you're in someone else's house or at a public place, you will get in trouble and potentially escorted out if you say certain things. No one has "freedom of speech" when that means "freedom from consequence." When the president makes his State of the Union address, you can't interrupt him with your comments, either. This is the world you live in and has been the world you lived in for some number of years. There are good and sufficient reasons that it be so. If you think these are bad things, you're going to have to come up with some pretty compelling reasons as to why.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
[q
I'm going to have to agree with @Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Why you suddenly agree with Preacher's weird rant claiming that thinking Mary Sue removing comments that revealed troubling aspects of a UN report is 9/11 truthurism, I don't get.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited October 2015
withdrawn
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
[q
I'm going to have to agree with Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Why you suddenly agree with Preacher's weird rant claiming that thinking Mary Sue removing comments that revealed troubling aspects of a UN report is 9/11 truthurism, I don't get.
This post still provides little to no clarity.
I think I'll just consider you a goose and call it a day.
Do you imagine that this post was somehow more constructive?
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
[q
I'm going to have to agree with Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Why you suddenly agree with Preacher's weird rant claiming that thinking Mary Sue removing comments that revealed troubling aspects of a UN report is 9/11 truthurism, I don't get.
This post still provides little to no clarity.
I think I'll just consider you a goose and call it a day.
Do you imagine that this post was somehow more constructive?
I asked for more clarity, is that not constructive?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
[q
I'm going to have to agree with @Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say, "People are oversensitive to claims of censorship"? I think this might be the part where I am not sure what people/oversensitivity you are describing exactly. When people are being oversensitive to claims of censorship, what form does that take?
Why you suddenly agree with Preacher's weird rant claiming that thinking Mary Sue removing comments that revealed troubling aspects of a UN report is 9/11 truthurism, I don't get.
I wasn't. I don't even know what you're talking about there honestly. I was just referring to not being able to figure out what your actual point is, which preacher also seemed unable to do (though perhaps related to a different issue).
[q
I'm going to have to agree with Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Why you suddenly agree with Preacher's weird rant claiming that thinking Mary Sue removing comments that revealed troubling aspects of a UN report is 9/11 truthurism, I don't get.
This post still provides little to no clarity.
I think I'll just consider you a goose and call it a day.
Do you imagine that this post was somehow more constructive?
I asked for more clarity, is that not constructive?
Not when you respond to an honest attempt (however flawed) at providing that clarity with the closest thing to "you're a shithead" that the forum rules allow.
Speaking of name calling, I feel it's important to note to Mr. Brigg, that the duck thing was actually a reference to "the glorious edict." ....of which I can't seem to find the official edict announcement on the board anymore 0_o ....
[q
I'm going to have to agree with Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Why you suddenly agree with Preacher's weird rant claiming that thinking Mary Sue removing comments that revealed troubling aspects of a UN report is 9/11 truthurism, I don't get.
This post still provides little to no clarity.
I think I'll just consider you a goose and call it a day.
Do you imagine that this post was somehow more constructive?
I asked for more clarity, is that not constructive?
Not when you respond to an honest attempt (however flawed) at providing that clarity with the closest thing to "you're a shithead" that the forum rules allow.
OK, understood and withdrawn.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
[q
I'm going to have to agree with @Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say, "People are oversensitive to claims of censorship"? I think this might be the part where I am not sure what people/oversensitivity you are describing exactly. When people are being oversensitive to claims of censorship, what form does that take?
To be 100% clear on this.
Someone complains the mods removed something, claiming it's censorship (it is). Instead of going, yeah but everyone self censors every day who cares, there are weird reaction to deny this is happening at all.
It's really weird to me this conversation is dragging on this weird point, when it was in response to a post overall I liked and just got mildly annoyed that it somewhat followed the trend of annoying and unironic "Freeze Peach" which is used to completely shut down conversations in a manner no different than calling someone a MRA or SJW (something I brought up earlier something people seemed to have understood then)
[q
I'm going to have to agree with Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say, "People are oversensitive to claims of censorship"? I think this might be the part where I am not sure what people/oversensitivity you are describing exactly. When people are being oversensitive to claims of censorship, what form does that take?
To be 100% clear on this.
Someone complains the mods removed something, claiming it's censorship (it is). Instead of going, yeah but everyone self censors every day who cares, there are weird reaction to deny this is happening at all.
It's really weird to me this conversation is dragging on this weird point, when it was in response to a post overall I liked and just got mildly annoyed that it somewhat followed the trend of annoying and unironic "Freeze Peach" which is used to completely shut down conversations in a manner no different than calling someone a MRA or SJW (something I brought up earlier something people seemed to have understood then)
Ok this Freeze Peach thing is obnoxious and obscures any point your trying to make. Stop doing that. Also I'm completely unaware of what you're referencing with regards to some UN whatever? I'm sorry I don't obsessively follow these cases and what you mentioned was word salad without a link or a reference to it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
[q
I'm going to have to agree with @Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say, "People are oversensitive to claims of censorship"? I think this might be the part where I am not sure what people/oversensitivity you are describing exactly. When people are being oversensitive to claims of censorship, what form does that take?
To be 100% clear on this.
Someone complains the mods removed something, claiming it's censorship (it is). Instead of going, yeah but everyone self censors every day who cares, there are weird reaction to deny this is happening at all.
It's really weird to me this conversation is dragging on this weird point, when it was in response to a post overall I liked and just got mildly annoyed that it somewhat followed the trend of annoying and unironic "Freeze Peach" which is used to completely shut down conversations in a manner no different than calling someone a MRA or SJW (something I brought up earlier something people seemed to have understood then)
I had to google "Freeze peach", I think using weird terminology that not everyone is aware of may be part of where we're not understanding you. This isn't Reddit or 4chan. Though terms like MRA and SJW have spread far enough that they aren't localized to specific areas of the internet (although even those terms are not ones that everyone knows necessarily), if you start saying things like "My soggy knees" and "freeze peach", a lot of people will just be confused.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Ok this Freeze Peach thing is obnoxious and obscures any point your trying to make. Stop doing that.
I just want to say it's kind of hilarious that you guys are having an argument about censorship and now you're literally telling him to stop saying a particular thing.
Instead of going, yeah but everyone self censors every day who cares, there are weird reaction to deny this is happening at all.
I don't know what this means exactly, but I'll try. You appear to be saying that if the mods delete something you posted, that it IS censorship, but... that even though it is censorship you shouldn't care too much about it because it's no big deal?
Maybe I see where you're going with this. So you're saying there is censorship, but sometimes censorship is a bad thing and sometimes it's not. So you'd say:
BAD CENSORSHIP: I am trying to publish a scathing article about Obama, but he is using his office, military, or other means of power to suppress my article and any negative opinions about him being spoken/printed/etc in any location.
BORING CENSORSHIP: Forum moderation. Technically censorship, because words are being removed, but it doesn't infringe rights and no one should care.
I think maybe a lot of the confusion is just that confusion about definitions. You are perhaps trying to argue for a different (i.e. more broad) understanding of the word "censorship" and people were not following you on that.
Its not censorship to tell someone to stop using a word pun instead of what they really mean. Part of an honest dialogue is using words and terms everyone understands, other wise its some dumb game of calvin ball where everyone obscures what they are really saying behind made up terms.
Its like how people explain MMO fights using other MMO fight mechanics without describing the actual mechanic. So if you've never done that content you have no idea what they are saying.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well, a quick browse through Mr. Bigg's comment history is confusing, but not inscrutable. His first comment points toward accusing Motherboard of removing comments as a way to sanitize their website of detritus and opposing views, and since then, each of his comments has been arguing about a different point of contention with no clear relation to a larger argument, hence the confusion. It's important to understand that Mr. Bigg takes for granted that any website with a political agenda will try to silence or minimize opposing views, of which Motherboard apparently has "a clear political agenda for a magazine that has a progressive agenda." That's the assumption that I think is throwing everyone off, as well as broad assumptions about the content of online magazines and their commenting communities.
what a happy day it is
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
That's the shit that scares me vis a vis free speech. While I am on record as not being the biggest fan of Tube as a person, I do not deny that the moderation on this board is among the most excellent of any place I visit, and furthermore Tube banning me is literally nothing when compared to having my borrowing and purchasing ability hindered by my choice of hobby or my criticism of the government.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
That's the shit that scares me vis a vis free speech. While I am on record as not being the biggest fan of Tube as a person, I do not deny that the moderation on this board is among the most excellent of any place I visit, and furthermore Tube banning me is literally nothing when compared to having my borrowing and purchasing ability hindered by my choice of hobby or my criticism of the government.
Agreed.
Forum moderation, including verboten topics/terms =/= North Korea
Yeah this is a terrible take on this and is outright trying to miss the point of the joke. The point isn't "Taking down comment sections is bad", it's "the system your putting in place to replace them is even more outdated and is being used to stifle actual conversation on the piece." Youtube comments are (sadly) better conversation makers than gloried fan letters.
Well, ignoring the fact that this was not likely a direct response to the PA comic, as was brought up earlier, I'm going to have to disagree about the "outdated" model being intrinsically worse. Requiring people to jump through an additional hoop or two to make their voices heard, even very minor hoops, filters out a LOT of the crap. The amount of effort that even the most vile of people are willing to expend to shitpost on the internet is surprisingly low. Someone said earlier in the defense of comments sections that they shouldn't get rid of the comments sections because that's too easy and nothing worth doing is easy. I say that cuts both ways.
That's the shit that scares me vis a vis free speech. While I am on record as not being the biggest fan of Tube as a person, I do not deny that the moderation on this board is among the most excellent of any place I visit, and furthermore Tube banning me is literally nothing when compared to having my borrowing and purchasing ability hindered by my choice of hobby or my criticism of the government.
Wait tube didn't make you guys have to put in your credit score and mothers maiden name and last 3 places you lived to get a forum account?
I thought that was standard!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
That's the shit that scares me vis a vis free speech. While I am on record as not being the biggest fan of Tube as a person, I do not deny that the moderation on this board is among the most excellent of any place I visit, and furthermore Tube banning me is literally nothing when compared to having my borrowing and purchasing ability hindered by my choice of hobby or my criticism of the government.
Wait tube didn't make you guys have to put in your credit score and mothers maiden name and last 3 places you lived to get a forum account?
I thought that was standard!
Sucks to be you. I only gave him my SSN and passport #.
Posts
Yeah this is a terrible take on this and is outright trying to miss the point of the joke. The point isn't "Taking down comment sections is bad", it's "the system your putting in place to replace them is even more outdated and is being used to stifle actual conversation on the piece." Youtube comments are (sadly) better conversation makers than gloried fan letters.
I doubt the chainsaw suit comic is a reaction to the PA comic as much as it is just its own take on the discussion generally (i.e. I'm not sure Straub is "not getting the joke"). If Kris Straub really wanted to disagree with G&T's opinion on this, he could just knock on their door and say, "You guys are dumb. Wanna go to taco bell?"
Yeah, if Kris Sraub wanted Jerry to know he doesn't agree with him, he'll just walk a few steps over and tell him to his face.
let's not go there
lol sure okay
It is though. People think Limited Speech and censorship are automatically bad instead of a literal definition, abit of something that can be extremely bad if applied improperly or by government action.
People claim they want to have conversations and shutting down comments destroys that. What they often mean is that they would like to control the conversation, and are opposed to anyone attempting to remove control away from them.
If PA mods said there is now a rule that no one is allowed to say the word "aardvark" then, yes, your speech is being limited in the very technical sense that there is now one less word you are allowed to say.
But your rights are not being infringed.
If all you're saying is, "There is one less word I'm allowed to say," but it's not a speech rights complaint, then what even is your point other than stating the obvious in a convoluted way?
You can say goose all you want.
goose.
*gasp*
*is scandalized*
But do you have the freedom to yell at a duck?
My point is people hide or run around the usage of the word censorship, as well as cry too much about it.
That was far from convoluted.
I'm going to have to agree with @Preacher from previous page. I can't exactly tell what your point is anymore. Are you agreeing with me? Are you disagreeing with me? Both? Neither?
The convoluted part for me, especially with this last post, is wondering what specifically you are arguing against, what you think is bad in the series of events that have taken place.
Are you unhappy because you feel you should be able to say whatever you want whenever you want? Well, you were never going to get to do that anyway. If you have a job, you'll get in trouble and potentially get fired for saying certain things. If you're in someone else's house or at a public place, you will get in trouble and potentially escorted out if you say certain things. No one has "freedom of speech" when that means "freedom from consequence." When the president makes his State of the Union address, you can't interrupt him with your comments, either. This is the world you live in and has been the world you lived in for some number of years. There are good and sufficient reasons that it be so. If you think these are bad things, you're going to have to come up with some pretty compelling reasons as to why.
I'm not being obtuse here. I'm saying people are oversensitive to claims of censorship, which began when someone complained that this website is also engaging in heavy moderation and therefore something about "hypocrisy". Followed by jokes about banning the word duck and not just admitting it and stating there's nothing hypocritical about it.
Why you suddenly agree with Preacher's weird rant claiming that thinking Mary Sue removing comments that revealed troubling aspects of a UN report is 9/11 truthurism, I don't get.
Do you imagine that this post was somehow more constructive?
I asked for more clarity, is that not constructive?
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say, "People are oversensitive to claims of censorship"? I think this might be the part where I am not sure what people/oversensitivity you are describing exactly. When people are being oversensitive to claims of censorship, what form does that take?
I wasn't. I don't even know what you're talking about there honestly. I was just referring to not being able to figure out what your actual point is, which preacher also seemed unable to do (though perhaps related to a different issue).
Not when you respond to an honest attempt (however flawed) at providing that clarity with the closest thing to "you're a shithead" that the forum rules allow.
EDIT- Oh, it's here in the "The Rules" post https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/165388/the-rules#latest .
OK, understood and withdrawn.
To be 100% clear on this.
Someone complains the mods removed something, claiming it's censorship (it is). Instead of going, yeah but everyone self censors every day who cares, there are weird reaction to deny this is happening at all.
It's really weird to me this conversation is dragging on this weird point, when it was in response to a post overall I liked and just got mildly annoyed that it somewhat followed the trend of annoying and unironic "Freeze Peach" which is used to completely shut down conversations in a manner no different than calling someone a MRA or SJW (something I brought up earlier something people seemed to have understood then)
Ok this Freeze Peach thing is obnoxious and obscures any point your trying to make. Stop doing that. Also I'm completely unaware of what you're referencing with regards to some UN whatever? I'm sorry I don't obsessively follow these cases and what you mentioned was word salad without a link or a reference to it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I had to google "Freeze peach", I think using weird terminology that not everyone is aware of may be part of where we're not understanding you. This isn't Reddit or 4chan. Though terms like MRA and SJW have spread far enough that they aren't localized to specific areas of the internet (although even those terms are not ones that everyone knows necessarily), if you start saying things like "My soggy knees" and "freeze peach", a lot of people will just be confused.
I just want to say it's kind of hilarious that you guys are having an argument about censorship and now you're literally telling him to stop saying a particular thing.
So you're saying (heavy) moderation IS censorship. Or a KIND of censorship, at least.
I don't know what this means exactly, but I'll try. You appear to be saying that if the mods delete something you posted, that it IS censorship, but... that even though it is censorship you shouldn't care too much about it because it's no big deal?
Maybe I see where you're going with this. So you're saying there is censorship, but sometimes censorship is a bad thing and sometimes it's not. So you'd say:
BAD CENSORSHIP: I am trying to publish a scathing article about Obama, but he is using his office, military, or other means of power to suppress my article and any negative opinions about him being spoken/printed/etc in any location.
BORING CENSORSHIP: Forum moderation. Technically censorship, because words are being removed, but it doesn't infringe rights and no one should care.
I think maybe a lot of the confusion is just that confusion about definitions. You are perhaps trying to argue for a different (i.e. more broad) understanding of the word "censorship" and people were not following you on that.
Its like how people explain MMO fights using other MMO fight mechanics without describing the actual mechanic. So if you've never done that content you have no idea what they are saying.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's the shit that scares me vis a vis free speech. While I am on record as not being the biggest fan of Tube as a person, I do not deny that the moderation on this board is among the most excellent of any place I visit, and furthermore Tube banning me is literally nothing when compared to having my borrowing and purchasing ability hindered by my choice of hobby or my criticism of the government.
Agreed.
Forum moderation, including verboten topics/terms =/= North Korea
Well, ignoring the fact that this was not likely a direct response to the PA comic, as was brought up earlier, I'm going to have to disagree about the "outdated" model being intrinsically worse. Requiring people to jump through an additional hoop or two to make their voices heard, even very minor hoops, filters out a LOT of the crap. The amount of effort that even the most vile of people are willing to expend to shitpost on the internet is surprisingly low. Someone said earlier in the defense of comments sections that they shouldn't get rid of the comments sections because that's too easy and nothing worth doing is easy. I say that cuts both ways.
Steam: pazython
Wait tube didn't make you guys have to put in your credit score and mothers maiden name and last 3 places you lived to get a forum account?
I thought that was standard!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sucks to be you. I only gave him my SSN and passport #.
Steam: pazython